Just another WordPress.com weblog

Internet campaigning

The first reading for today focused on Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign and, more specifically, his innovative use of the World Wide Web in campaigning. While Dean certainly did not have the first campaign website, he was the first to relinquish total control of his web presence. The result of this was the first truly interactive internet-based campaign. Four years later, Obama and McCain would further define internet campaigning techniques, basing much of their strategies on what Dean had already done.
Dean allowed users to create their own pages and to schedule their own campaign events, making the campaign much more about grassroots efforts than planned events by paid campaign staffers. Obama’s 2008 campaign used this method as well, allowing supporters to blog about the candidate and to organize their own fundraising and canvassing events.
But, while the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns have shown us the power of the internet in enlisting support, finding volunteers and raising funds, the full power of the internet has yet to be seen. There is still a digital divide in America. While we are one of the most wired societies on earth, not every person owns their own computer with an internet connection and spends significant time using the Web. Senior citizens and the poor are particularly ‘unwired’ with survey data showing that Hispanics and African-Americans use the internet much less than whites. Someday, perhaps in 2016 or 2020, when nearly every person in the United States uses the internet on a daily basis will we see all of the effects of the internet on campaigning.
The second reading was about a different sort of campaigning. It focused on public relations efforts of foreign governments. It is true that the attention of the American public is very valuable. As the largest economy with the most powerful military, the United States is not a good enemy to have, politically or militarily. In order to sway the populace as well as the politicians in favor of a particular government, foreign nations frequently use American public relations firms to help frame media coverage of their country and to promote positive relations.
There have been notable successes of these efforts. The late Benazir Bhutto was widely known in the US while leader of Pakistan. She was educated at Harvard University and the mere fact of her alma mater certainly made her pro-democracy rhetoric seem more sincere than if she had been educated in her home country. South Africa’s ANC regime, Israel and South Korea have also successfully promoted positive images of their nations and governments to Americans by using PR tactics similar to that of companies.
This form of manipulation is more possible because of where the information is coming from. Very few Americans have first-hand knowledge of such nations that could contradict the messages from PR firms. Foreign affairs news is often the only knowledge one has of another nation. If it is manipulated in favor of the foreign government, or against, that is likely how the news consumer in the US will perceive that nation.